Medical Dominance within Research Ethics Committees

REFERENCES

• ABPI/BIA/CCRA. (2012). Insurance and Compensation in the Event of Injury in Phase I Clinical Trials. London: BioIndustry Association.
   Google Scholar
• Academy of Medical Sciences. (2011). A New Pathway for the Regulation and Governance of Health Research. London: Academy of Medical Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Allsop, J. and Mulcahy, L. (1996). Regulating Medical Work: Formal and Informal Controls. Buckingham: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Angell, E. L. and Dixon-Woods, M. (2008). Style matters: an analysis of 100 research ethics committee decision letters. Research Ethics Review, 4:101––105.
   Google Scholar
• Beauchamp, T. L. and Childress, J. F. (2009). Principles of Biomedical Ethics. (6th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Beyleveld, D. and Sethe, S. (2008). The European Community Directives on Data Protection and Clinical Trials. In E. J. Emanuel, C. Grady, R. A. Crouch, R. K. Lie, F. G. Miller, and D. Wendler (eds.). The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Black, J. (2001). Proceduralizing regulation: Part II. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 21(1):35–58.
   Google Scholar
• Bond, T. (2012). Ethical imperialism or ethical mindfulness? Rethinking ethical review for social sciences. Research Ethics, 8(2):97–112.
   Google Scholar
• Citro, C. F., Ilgen, D. R., and Marrett, C. B. (eds.). (2003). Protecting Participants and Facilitating Social and Behavioural Sciences Research. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cownie, J. (2006). The role of the lay member. Research Ethics Review, 2(1):29–30.
   Google Scholar
• Department of Health. (2001). Governance Arrangements for Research Ethics Committees. London: Department of Health.
   Google Scholar
• Department of Health. (2011). Governance Arrangements for Research Ethics Committees: A Harmonised Edition. London: Department of Health.
   Google Scholar
• De Vries, R. (2004). How can we help? From “sociology in” to “sociology of” bioethics. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 32(2):279–292.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Vries, R. G. and Forsberg, C. P. (2002). What do IRBs look like? What kind of support do they receive? Accountability in Research, 9:199–216.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dingwall, R. (2008). Essays on Professions. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Dyer, S. (2004). Rationalising public participation in the health service: The case of research ethics committees. Health and Place, 10:339–348.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dyer, S. and Demeritt, D. (2009). Un-ethical review? Why it is wrong to apply the medical model of research governance to human geography. Progress in Human Geography, 33(1):46–64.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eckstein, S. (ed.). (2003). Manual for Research Ethics Committees. (6th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Emmerich, N. (2009). On the ethics committee: the expert member, the lay member and the absentee ethicist. Research Ethics Review, 5(1):9–13.
   Google Scholar
• EULABOR. (2005). Proposal for Training Programmes in Biomedical Research Ethics (Draft Document 2). Available at www.eulabor.org. Last accessed December 7, 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Evans, J. H. (2000). A sociological account of the growth of principalism. Hastings Center Report, 30(5):31–38.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fox, R. C. and Swazey, J. P. (1984). Medical morality is not bioethics: Medical ethics in China and the United States. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 27(Spring):336–360.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freidson, E. (1970). Professional Dominance: The Social Structure of Medical Care. Chicago: Aldine Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Gesang, B. (2010). Are moral philosophers moral experts? Bioethics, 24(4):153–159.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Groenhout, R. (2010). The difference difference makes: Public health and the complexities of racial and ethnic differences. In J. L. Scully, L. E. Baldwin-Ragaven, and P. Fitzpatrick (eds.). Feminist Bioethics: At the Center, on the Margins. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, S. (1991). The research imperative and bureaucratic control: The case of clinical research. Social Science and Medicine, 32(3):333–342.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hare, R. M. (1981). Moral Thinking: Its Levels, Method and Point. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hedgecoe, A. (2009). “A Form of Practical Machinery”: The origins of research ethics committees in the U.K., 1967–72. Medical History, 53(3):271–292.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hedgecoe, A. (2012a). Trust and regulatory organisations: The role of local knowledge and facework in research ethics review. Social Studies of Science, 42(5):662–683.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hedgecoe, A. (2012b). The problems of presumed isomorphism and the ethics review of social science: a response to Schrag. Research Ethics, 8(2):79–86.
   Google Scholar
• Humphreys, S. (2007). Drip-feeding: How the pharmaceutical industry influences research ethics committees. Research Ethics Review, 3(4):113–117.
   Google Scholar
• Humphreys, S. (2012). The Work of Phase I Ethics Committees: Expert and Lay Membership. University of Hertfordshire. Doctoral thesis. Available at https://uhra.herts.ac.uk/dspace/handle/2299/10314. Last accessed December 21, 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Humphreys, S. (2013). Research Ethics Committees: the ineligibles. Research Ethics. doi:10.1177/1747016113489944.
   Google Scholar
• Humphreys, S., Thomas, H. A., and Martin, R. M. Science review in RECs an unfair double jeopardy. Under Review.
   Google Scholar
• Hunter, D. (2007). The roles of research ethics committees: Implications for membership. Research Ethics Review, 3(1):24–26.
   Google Scholar
• Hunter, D. (2011). Risk versus benefits is like apples versus oranges. Research Ethics 7:79–80.
   Google Scholar
• Juritzen, T. I., Grimen, H., and Heggen, K. (2011). Protecting vulnerable research participants: A Foucault-inspired analysis of ethics committees. Nursing Ethics 18(5):640–650.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Legood, G. (2005). The recruitment and role of lay members. Research Ethics Review, 1(4):135–137.
   Google Scholar
• Macfarlane, B. (2009). Researching with Integrity. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• McHale, J. V. (2004). Law and clinical research: From rights to regulation? An English perspective. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 32(4):718–730.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLuhan, M. (1967), The Medium Is the Massage: An Inventory of Effects. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• Moreno, J. D. (2005). Is There An Ethicist In The House? On the Cutting Edge of Bioethics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mullins, M. and Doyle, E. (2010). Establishing a research ethics committee in a business school: A chairperson’s perspective. Research Ethics Review, 6(4):133–142.
   Google Scholar
• National Communications Association. (2005). Communication scholars’ narrative of IRB experiences. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 33:204–230.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neuberger, J. (1992). Ethics and Health Care: The Role of Research Ethics Committees in the United Kingdom. London: King’s Fund Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Nicholson, R. (1986a). Medical Research with Children: Ethics, Law, and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nicholson, R. (1986b). Research Ethics Committees in England. IME Bulletin, Supplement:2.
   Google Scholar
• Nicholson, R. (1993). Ways forward for research ethics review. Bulletin of Medical Ethics, December:13–16.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• NRES. (2012). Insurance and Compensation in the Event of Injury in Commercially Sponsored Phase 1 Clinical Trials. London: HRA.
   Google Scholar
• Porter, J. P. (1986). What are the ideal characteristics of unaffiliated/nonscientist IRB members? IRB, 8(3):1–6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rawbone, R. G. (2000). Observations from six years’ experience of a health and safety research ethics committee. Bulletin of Medical Ethics, February:13–19.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rawlinson, M. C. (2010). The right to life: Rethinking universalism in bioethics. In J. L. Scully, L. E. Baldwin-Ragaven, and P. Fitzpatrick (eds.). Feminist Bioethics: At the Center, on the Margins. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Richardson, A. (2007). Ethics? Whose Ethics? A Report on a Consultation Day (15 March 2007). London: National Patient Safety Agency.
   Google Scholar
• Schrag, Z. M. (2011). The case against ethics review in the social sciences. Research Ethics, 7(4):120–131.
   Google Scholar
• Speers, M. A. (2008). Evaluating the effectiveness of Institutional Review Boards. In E. J. Emanuel, C. Grady, R. A. Crouch, R. K. Lie, F. G. Miller, and D. Wendler (eds.). The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stark, L. (2012). Behind Closed Doors: IRBs and the Making of Ethical Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Steinkamp, N. L., Gordijn, B., and ten Have, H. A. M. (2008). Debating ethical expertise. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 18(2):173–192.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tranøy, K. E. (1990). Research in bioethics. Bulletin of Medical Ethics, 33(3):18–22.
   Google Scholar
• Tucker, B. (2006). Is the consideration of semantics irrelevant? Research Ethics Review, 2(1):31–32.
   Google Scholar
• Van den Hoonaard, W. C. (2011). The Seduction of Ethics: Transforming the Social Sciences. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
   Google Scholar